Challenge to the Warmers: What's your Theory?

[newpolitics]

Perhaps I'm getting in the middle of someone saying something incorrectly but don't greenhouse gasses just slow the rate of heat loss?

The heat (infrared radiation) at issue here is an electromagnetic wave travelling at the speed of light. There is no "slowing down" of an EM wave. Either the energy is trapped (as what happens with water vapor) or it is not in which case it moves on in the direction of the EM wave at the speed of light.

If you somehow misunderstood me saying CO2 or water vapor creates heat my apologies for making you do all that typing. Them font commands are not the easiest thing to type.

If you are suggesting that radiation from CO2 reaches the surface of the earth, and is absorbed and therefore increases the amount of energy the earth radiates, then you are making the claim of created energy. The sun is the only source of energy the earth has so it can radiate no more than it receives from the sun. In order to radiate more energy than is received from the only source of power energy must be created somehow.

Wow... listen. The light radiation is transferred to heat radiation when it hits the surface of the earth, which can not penetrate clouds or greenhouse gases when it is deflected off the surface back into the sky. The heat STAYS. What don't you understand?

Research it yourself instead of asking on here like we are scientists who study this stuff. Seriously. It's like you think that because we can't explain it perfectly, it is isn't explainable. google the damn topic, and study it, and maybe you'll see that it makes sense. Why are you relying on us? Obviously, you don't really want to know, you just want to argue and poke holes in our arguement. You don't have to be an expert to simply understand, but explaining it to someone who doesn't want to listen requires utmost expertise.

 

[wirebender]

It's the exact same idea as an actual greenhouse, except in Greenhouses the glass warms from Convection and not IR. The light comes in as visible radiation, and then dissipates as heat radiation and is unable to pass through the glass in the same amount that it came through. Hence, you get HEATING in a greenhouse, which I am sure you are familiar with.

Actually, a greenhouse warms via IR. IR passes through the glass and warms any exposed surface within the greenhouse. Floor, soils, plants, tools, etc. Then those objects begin to radiate. The glass however, prevents conduction of that energy into the open atmosphere. The principles upon which a greenhouse operates have no analogy with an open atmosphere.

The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface, energy is transferred to the surface and the lower atmosphere. As a result, the temperature there is higher than it would be if direct heating by solar radiation were the only warming mechanism.[1][2]

It is difficult to believe that people actually believe this. Here is the energy budget that shows what you claime to be happening. It is the energy budget upon which the AGW and greenhouse effect hypotheses is built.

If all the energy comes from the sun and 166 watts per square meter from the sun is being absorbed by the surface of the earth, how is it that the earth can radiate more than two times that amount of energy (396 watts per square meter) if there is no additional energy being put into the system, and if there is additional energy, where is it being generated? Describe the law of physics that you base this energy creation on.

See the yellow ray from the sun? At the top it says incoming solar radiation 341.3. That means, according to the graph 343.1 watts per square meter of energy is coming in from the sun. Now look at the bottom. It says, right there, as clear as can be made that 166 watts per square meter of the incoming radiation from the sun is actually absorbed by the surface of the earth.

Since the sun is the only energy source, and the amount of energy from the sun that is absorbed by the surface of the earth is 166 watts per square meter, the maximum amount of energy that can be radiated by the surface of the earth is 166 watts per square meter and that would be only if the surface of the earth were a perfect reflector, reflecting every bit of energy that it absorbs from the sun. 166 watts per square meter. That is the amount absorbed by the surface of the earth from the only energy source and therefore that is all that is available to be radiated.

Now, look over on the right side of the graphic. 323 is the number and it is labeled back radiation. The claim is that 323 watts per square meter is being radiated back to the earth and the graphic clearly states that it is being absorbed by the surface of the earth. Nearly double the amount of energy from the ONLY energy source is being reflected back to the surface of the earth and according the graph, allowing the earth to radiate 396 watts per square meter. 396 watts per square meter is more than double the amount of energy that is coming in from the sun.

How does a surface that absorbs 166 watts per square meter from its ONLY energy source manage to radiate more than double that amount? Explain it. Describe what phisical law would allow such a thing and for God's sake, tell me why, if the energy from the sun is being doubled, why we don't simply collect that magical excess and use it to satisfy our energy needs?

If energy can be reflected back to its source and increase the output of that source, then we have no energy concerns whatsoever.

Do you really believe that you can place a heater in a room in your home that radiates, say, 1000 watts of energy and place 1, 10, 100, or 1000 reflectors around that heater to reflect the energy it is emitting back to it and increase its output to more than 1000 watts? Do you actually believe that you can gain energy, that you don't have to pay for by placing a reflector near your heater? Do you believe you can generate additional electricity, that is, get an output of more than 1000 watts that won't show up on your power bill by the use of reflectors? If you do beleive this, are you doing it? Can you show me any data that proves that your heater has an output of more than 1000 watts without increasing the amount of electricity you use by the use of reflectors?

And tell me, if you can actually get your heater to absorb some of this reflected heat and in turn, radiate more than 1000 watts of energy, what prevents your heater from eventually burning your home down? If it can absorb some of this reflected energy and in turn radiate more than 1000 watts, then the reflectors will begin to reflect more energy which your heater will absorb and radiate even more energy which will cause the reflectors to reflect even more energy which will cause your heater to absorb more and in turn, radiate even more energy which will cause your reflectors to reflect more energy which will be absorbed by your heater which will, in turn, radiate even more energy which will cause your reflectors to radiate more energy....see where this is going? You are describing the same sort of impossible phenomena in the atmosphere.

Solar radiation at the high frequencies of visible light passes through the atmosphere to warm the planetary surface, which then emits this energy at the lower frequencies of infrared thermal radiation. Infrared radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases, which in turn re-radiate much of the energy to the surface and lower atmosphere.

Nice. Except that it doesn't happen. I have provided an inexpensive, and very easy experiment which anyone here can perform and prove to themselves that there is no downdwelling radiation heating the surface of the earth because the EM field of the earth is greater than the EM field of the atmosphere and therefore the energy moves in the direction propagated by the larger EM field. The same principle that keeps your heater from heating to infinity just because you put a reflector in front of it.

In this experiment, you take a parabolic reflector (homemade solar oven) and point it towards the sky. If you point it towards the sun, you can boil water in quick time. Pretty cool little device that is cheap and easy to make. If, however, you point it towards the sky (during daylight hours) but not towards the sun, it will produce a cooling effect just as the second law of thermodynamics predicts because it is warmer than the atmosphere and propagates an EM field which radiates heat away from it into the cooler atmosphere.

If downdwelling radiation were warming the surface of the earth, no matter which direction you pointed the dish, it would be collecting downdwelling radiation and would warm whatever you had placed in your dish and since downdwelling radiation is supposedly happening day and night, you could actually warm, if not cook, materials in your solar oven, even at night.

At night, if the temperature is 47.5 degrees or less, your oven can actually make ice by pointing it towards the sky because it is warmer than the atmosphere and is propagating an EM wave which carries its heat towards the cooler atmosphere in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If downdwelling radiation existed, even at night, you would be receiving it with your dish and could not cool anything, much less make ice because this downdwelling radiation would be warmer than the surface of the earth.

So basically, the visible light radiation (which contains thermal radiation) hits the earth and is dissipated as thermal radiation, like when you wear something black, and it gets really hot because black absorbs light. The thermal radiation is then blocked by the clouds. If you think a cloud can't block it because of the speed of the radiation, then you know absolutely nothing about phsyics or the electromagnetic spectrum.

Clouds and water vapor are the only substances in the atmosphere that can actually absorb, and retain energy. Water, because of its phased nature can absorb energy that it does not emit. CO2, and every other greenhouse gas, on the other hand absorb and immedieatly emit precisely the same amount of energy that they absorbed and the energy is emitted in a wave form that is to long to be absorbed by another like molecule.

 

[sparky]

As i understand it CO2 has increased by 42% since 1900.

There is now more CO2 in the air since 2 million years before the first humans.

So how do we know the CO2 comes from human activity, or where this CO2 is generated is the main Q

Can't we can tell 'source' from the carbon isotopes?

If the ocean(s) are a source, how is it they are naturally gaining CO2?

If this increase is a natural cycle, shouldn't there be a theory on which it might be, and how often it occurs?


here's the natural cycles i've found so far.....>



Info on the earths magnetic reversal and/or fading....

From Nova
If all the compasses in the world started pointing south rather than north, many people might think something very strange, very unusual, and possibly very dangerous was going on. Doomsayers would have a field day proclaiming the end is nigh, while more rational persons might head straight to scientists for an explanation.
Fortunately, those scientists in the know—paleomagnetists, to be exact—would have a ready answer. Such reversals in the Earth's magnetic field, they'd tell you, are, roughly speaking, as common as ice ages. That is, they're terrifically infrequent by human standards, but in geologic terms they happen all the time. As the time line at right shows, hundreds of times in our planet's history the polarity of the magnetic shield ensheathing the globe has gone from "normal," our current orientation to the north, to "reversed," and back again.
The Earth is not alone in this fickleness: The sun's magnetic shield appears to reverse its polarity approximately every 11 years. Even our Milky Way galaxy is magnetized, and experts say it probably reverses its polarity as well. Moreover, while a severe weakening or disappearance of the magnetic field would lay us open to harmful radiation from the sun, there's little evidence to date that "flips" per se inflict any lasting damage (see Impact on Animals).
It might sound as if scientists have all the answers regarding magnetic reversals. But actually they know very little about them. Basic questions haunt researchers: What physical processes within the Earth trigger reversals? Why do the durations and frequencies of both normal and reversed states seem random? Why is there such a disproportionately long normal period between about 121 and 83 million years ago? Why does the reversal rate, at least during the past 160 million years, appear to peak around 12 million years ago?
All these questions remain unanswered, though experts like Dennis Kent, the Rutgers University geologist who supplied NOVA with updated figures for the time line, are hard at work trying to answer them. In the meantime, not to worry. Reversals happen on average only about once every 250,000 years, and they take hundreds if not thousands of years to complete.
Even the weakening currently under way may be a false alarm. The field often gets very weak, then bounces back, never having flipped. As Ron Merrill, a magnetic-field specialist at the University of Washington remarked when asked whether we're in for a reversal: "Ask me in 10,000 years, I'll give you a better answer." So hang on to your compass. For the foreseeable future, it should work as advertised

Magnetic reversals from Nova (interactive computer based flick there)





Magneticosphere - Earth's Magnetic Field
The earth's magnetic field strength was measured by Carl Friedrich Gauss in 1835 and has been repeatedly measured since then, showing an exponential decay with a half-life of about 1400 years. This could also be stated as a relative decay of about 10% to 15% over the last 150 years.




Earth's Magnetic Field Is Fading
Without our planet's magnetic field, Earth would be subjected to more cosmic radiation. The increase could knock out power grids, scramble the communications systems on spacecraft, temporarily widen atmospheric ozone holes, and generate more aurora activity.
A number of Earth's creatures, including some birds, turtles, and bees, rely on Earth's magnetic field to navigate. The field is in constant flux, scientists say. But even without it, life on Earth will continue, researchers say.
According to Earth's geologic record, our planet's magnetic field flips, on average, about once every 200,000 years. The time between reversals varies widely, however. The last time Earth's magnetic field flipped was about 780,000 years ago.



info on the Mayan calendar....

THE HOW AND WHY OF THE MAYAN END DATE IN 2012 A.D.
How: Long Count and Seasonal Quarters
Long Count katun beginnings will conjunct sequential seasonal quarters every 1.7.0.0.0 days (194400 days). This is an easily tracked Long Count interval. Starting with the katun beginning of 650 B.C.:
Long Count Which Quarter? Year
6.5.0.0.0 Fall 650 B.C.
7.12.0.0.0 Winter 118 B.C.
8.19.0.0.0 Spring 416 A.D.
10.6.0.0.0 Summer 948 A.D.
11.13.0.0.0 Fall 1480 A.D.
13.0.0.0.0 Winter 2012 A.D.
Note that the last date is not only a katun beginning, but a baktun beginning as well. It is, indeed, the end date of 2012.6
The Long Count may have been officially inaugurated on a specific date in 355 B.C., as Edmonson suggests, but it must have been formulated, tried, tested, and proven before this date. This may well have taken centuries, and the process no doubt paralleled (and was perhaps instigated by) the discovery of precession. The Long Count system automatically accounts for precession in its ability to calculate future seasonal quarters - a property which shouldn't be underestimated.
Summary
This has been my attempt to fill a vacuum in Mayan Studies, an answer to the why and how of the end date of the 13-baktun cycle of the Mayan Long Count. The solution requires a shift in how we think about the astronomy of the Long Count end date. The strange fact that it occurs on a winter solstice immediately points us to possible astronomical reasons, but they are not obvious. We also shouldn't forget the often mentioned fact that the 13-baktun cycle of some 5125 years is roughly 1/5th of a precessional cycle. This in itself should have been suggestive of a deeper mystery very early on. Only with the recent identification of the astronomical nature of the Sacred Tree has the puzzle revealed its fullness. And once again we are amazed at the sophistication and vision of the ancient New World astronomers, the decendants of whom still count the days and watch the skies in the remote outbacks of Guatemala.
This essay is not contrived upon sketchy evidence. It basically rests upon two facts:
1) the well known end date of the 13-baktun cycle of the Mayan Long Count, which is December 21st, 2012 A.D. and
2) the astronomical situation on that day. Based upon these two facts alone, the creators of the Long Count knew about and calculated the rate of precession over 2300 years ago. I can conceive of no other conclusion. To explain this away as "coincidence" would only obscure the issue.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeE-3BBqG58&mode=related&search=]U tube Mayan Calendar[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6wI3Pbolbw&mode=related&search=]2012 Mayan Prophecy from the Hx channel[/ame]
note the 26,000 yr alingment of the sun with the galaxy's core with the earth's presesonal cycle, and onto yet another positional oddity associated with the same date...
Jupiter's Dance correlates sunspots with gravitational influences, noting the Mayan date;
So what then is happening between the Sun and Jupiter to create the sunspots; a combined tidal effect, a focussing of magnetic fields on the Sun with the inner planet acting as a lens at the time of each synchronised pass of Jupiter and Earth, a shadow effect allowing the Sun's energies to rise to the surface. Let's look at the sky of December 21st 2012, mmmm. Jupiter, Earth, Sun in a line, Saturn, Venus, Sun in a line and Neptune, Mars, Sun in a line, auspicious wouldn't you say. It couldn't be they're all beaming their energy at our Sun simultaneously as a prelude to a mega rash of sunspots which in turn lead to...uulp!

info on an axial flip or pole shift.....
Pole shift theory
Recent work by scientists and geologists Adam Maloof of Princeton University and Galen Halverson of Paul Sabatier University in Toulouse, France, indicates that Earth indeed rebalanced itself around 800 million years ago during the Precambrian time period.[10] They tested this idea by studying magnetic minerals in sedimentary rocks in a Norwegian archipelago. Using these minerals, Maloof and Halverson found that the north pole shifted more than 50 degrees — about the current distance between Alaska and the equator — in less than 20 million years. This reasoning is supported by a record of changes in sea level and ocean chemistry in the Norwegian sediments that could be explained by true polar wander, the team reports in the September–October 2006 issue of the Geological Society of America Bulletin.[11]


Charles Hapgood
In 1958 Hapgood published his first book, The Earth's Shifting Crust. The Foreword to this was written by Albert Einstein, shortly before his death in 1955. In this book, and two successive books, Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings (1966) and The Path of the Pole (1970), Hapgood proposed the radical theory that the Earth's axis has shifted numerous times during geological history. This theory is not widely accepted by orthodox geologists.
Hapgood's Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings used numerous archival maps, including the Piri Reis Map, which he claims show a vast southern continent roughly similar to Antarctica in shape, to propose that a 15 degree pole shift occurred around 9,600 B.C. (aprox. 11.600 years ago), and that a part of the Antarctic was ice-free at that time. By implication an ice-age civilization could have mapped the coast at that point in time.


When North Becomes South: New Clues to Earth's Magnetic Flip-Flops
In the past 15 million years, there have been four reversals every 1 million years, or about one shift each 250,000 years, Clement explained. The last one, however, was 790,000 years ago. That might suggest we're overdue for a big change. Not necessarily so, Clement says. The flips are not periodic, meaning they don't adhere to a schedule of even intervals.
Yet the intensity of the magnetic field has been dropping for the last 2,000 years, and "it has dropped significantly" during the past two decades, Clement said. One recent study shows the decline in strength amounts to 10 percent over the last 150 years.




Pole Shifts
A pole shift theory is a hypothesis based on geologic evidence that the physical north and south poles of Earth have not always been at their present-day locations; in other words, the axis of rotation had been "shifted". Pole shift theory is almost always discussed in the context of Earth, but other solar system bodies may have experienced axial reorientation during their existences.
Theory of Crystal Displacement - Hapgood
One early popular proponent of a pole shift theory was Charles Hapgood in his books The Earth's Shifting Crust (1958) (which includes a foreword by Albert Einstein) and Path of the Pole (1970). Hapgood speculated that the ice mass at one or both poles over-accumulates which destabilizes the Earth's rotational balance, causing slippage of all or much of earth's outer crust around the earth's core, which retains its axial orientation. This happens either slowly (conservative version) or quickly (radical version). The results of the shift occurring every 12,000 to 20,000 years or so results in dramatic climate changes for most of the earth's surface as areas that were formally equatorial become temperate, and areas that were temperate become either more equatorial or more arctic.
Other theories which are not dependent upon polar ice masses include:
A high-velocity asteroid or comet which hits Earth at such an angle that the lithosphere moves independent of the mantle
An unusually magnetic celestial object which passes close enough to Earth to temporarily reorient the magnetic field, which then "drags" the lithosphere about a new axis of rotation. Eventually, the sun's magnetic field again determines the Earth's, after the intruding celestial object "returns" to a location it cannot influence Earth.

Theory of Crustal Displacement
The theory of Crustal Displacement states that the entire crust of the Earth can shift in one piece like the lose skin on an orange.
By studying the carcasses of the woolly mammoth and rhino found in the northern regions of Siberia and Canada one can see the land these animals gazed on was suddenly shoved into a much colder climate. Their stomachs reveal food found in warm climates where they grazed just prior to their deaths. This was found frozen along with them suddenly.
Thousands of animals were found to be frozen in a brief moment of geological time. Ancient maps of Antarctica suggests that it too was 'frozen over' in a brief moment in time.
It has been suggested that approximately 12,000 years ago there was a displacement of the Earth's crust. The entire outer shell of the earth moved approximately 2,000 miles. When the Earth's crust shifted all of Antarctica was encapsulated by the polar zone. At the same time North American was released from the Arctic Circle and became temperate.
This is based on the theory of Continental Drift - the continents of the earth have been slowly drifting apart over millions of years. This is possible because the outer crust of the Earth floats upon a semi-liquid layer.



Info the scientific community has on planetary cycles, orbital forcing & ice ages...
Milankovitch cycles
Milankovitch cycles are the collective effect of changes in the Earth's movements upon its climate, named after Serbian civil engineer and mathematician Milutin Milanković. The eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit vary in several patterns, resulting in 100,000 year ice age cycles of the Quaternary glaciation over the last few million years. The Earth's axis completes one full cycle of precession approximately every 26,000 years. At the same time, the elliptical orbit rotates, more slowly, leading to a 21,000 year cycle between the seasons and the orbit. In addition, the angle between Earth's rotational axis and the normal to the plane of its orbit changes from 21.5 degrees to 24.5 degrees and back again on a 41,000 year cycle. Currently, this angle is 23.44 degrees.
Orbital forcing
Orbital forcing describes the effect on climate of slow changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis and shape of the orbit (see Milankovitch cycles). These orbital changes change the total amount of sunlight reaching the Earth by up to 25% at mid-latitudes (from 400 to 500 Wm-2 at latitudes of 60 degrees). In this context, the term "forcing" signifies a physical process that affects the Earth's climate.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K6CxpmyHIo]U-tube Animation showing the three Milankovitch Cycles[/ame]

 

[wirebender]

While you wait for the hard evidence and neglect to use common sense, the world heats up and alters the conditions in which we were created...

Hysterical hand wringing is no substitute for evidence, or actual science. Both the roman warm period, and the medieval warm periods were warmer than the present and warmed at a rate as rapidly or more rapidly than the present without the benefit of the internal combustion engine.

We know that in the past the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has been in the thousands of PPM with no runaway warming as predicted by climte science. We also know that for the bulk of earth history, it has been so warm that no ice has existed at one or both of the poles. We have no control over the earth's climate and no amount of twisting and torturing the laws of nature is going to give us control over it.

It must be comfortable to believe humans can do whatever we want to this earth and it will all just 'be okay.'

We can certainly degrade our environment, but the climate is out of our control except on the very local level via the heat island effect which is nothing more than making the surface a better absorber.

 

[idb]

Umm...do you realise that you quoted an interpretation of the Mayan calendar to support your argument?
I hope your response will be "Oops!".

 

[wirebender]

Research it yourself instead of asking on here like we are scientists who study this stuff. Seriously. It's like you think that because we can't explain it perfectly, it is isn't explainable. google the damn topic, and study it, and maybe you'll see that it makes sense. Why are you relying on us? Obviously, you don't really want to know, you just want to argue and poke holes in our arguement. You don't have to be an expert to simply understand, but explaining it to someone who doesn't want to listen requires utmost expertise.

I have done the research and have provided the math, and the physics to back up my statements. All I have seen from you guys is you spouting your opinions. Your uncorroborated, unsupported opinions. You don't say which law of nature supports your claims and you don't show the math that supports your claims. You act as if just saying it will do and I am afraid that it won't. You want to convince me, fine. Prove to me that the 2nd law of thermodynamics actually says that a little energy can be transferred from a cool emitter to a warmer emitter rather than NO energy can be transferred. Prove to me that you don't have to cool a radiometer to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere in order to cause an EM wave to be propagated in the direction of the cooler reciever. Prove to me that when I point my parabolic dish towards the sky that the downdwelling radiation that somehow warms the earth is the self same radiation that is now causing ice to form when the ambient temperature is less than 48 degrees and describe the law of physics that makes such a thing possible.

And do show your work.

 

[IanC]

Frank, perhaps you are misunderstanding the debate. No one is doubting the planet has warmed since the last ice age. Folks are just concerned we are or will make it warm more than it should.

But without a shred of hard observed evidence that proves unequivocally that man is responsible for the changing climate, where does this concern come from? What motivates it? If there were hard evidence, that would be one thing, but there is none.

I am really confused about why you ignore evidence and common sense.

a beam of IR with the wavelength that interacts with CO2 will be absorbed and deflected when it goes through CO2. this is an experiment that has been done many times, with replicable results. I cant remember what the extinction rate is for earth's atmosphere, a few tens of meters at most. all of the IR (that CO2 absorbs) is sent pinballing around until gets high enough to escape, or gets 'converted' into a wavelength that is not absorbable and exits (if it doesnt return to the earth). I dont know what the average travel time is for one of those pinballing photons but it is certainly more than if it were travelling straight out at the speed of light.

I can understand argueing that the increased CO2 doesnt make much difference, ~1C for this doubling, less for subsequent ones. I can understand argueing that natural factors are the main drivers of climate and overwhelm the puny contributions of man. I can even understand argueing that a significant portion of the last hundred years' warming is due to artificial 'adjustments'. but I cant understand how you can dismiss CO2 out of hand as having no role in warming. 0.5%, 5%, 50%. I dont know which one is closest to being right but it has to be one of them.

your bullshit claims of 2nd law violation are getting old. you are just as in love with your pet theory as any of the warmers are with theirs. well, maybe not Chris and his temperature record highs or Old Rocks and his strange weather, but close.

 

[sparky]

Umm...do you realise that you quoted an interpretation of the Mayan calendar to support your argument?
I hope your response will be "Oops!".

the chronologically obsessed Mayans proposed natural cycles , which was the jist of my querie idb

i.e.- if we are being subjected to one, which would it be?

 

[idb]

Umm...do you realise that you quoted an interpretation of the Mayan calendar to support your argument?
I hope your response will be "Oops!".

the chronologically obsessed Mayans proposed natural cycles , which was the jist of my querie idb

i.e.- if we are being subjected to one, which would it be?

Sorry, it went over my head.
My irony detector is clearly malfunctioning.

 

[sparky]

Sorry, it went over my head.
My irony detector is clearly malfunctioning.

well we really do need industrial grade ones for this sort of issue idb....

 

[wirebender]

I am really confused about why you ignore evidence and common sense.

You are the one who seems to be ignoring the hard, observed, repeatable evidence.

a beam of IR with the wavelength that interacts with CO2 will be absorbed and deflected when it goes through CO2. this is an experiment that has been done many times, with replicable results.

Actually a beam of IR is absorbed and emitted, not deflected. Emission and deflection are two entirely different things.

I cant remember what the extinction rate is for earth's atmosphere, a few tens of meters at most. all of the IR (that CO2 absorbs) is sent pinballing around until gets high enough to escape, or gets 'converted' into a wavelength that is not absorbable and exits (if it doesnt return to the earth).

Pinballing? Here is the thing. Once your beam of IR is absorbed and emitted by a CO2 molecule, that is it. The emission is in a wavelength that is to long to be absorbed by another CO2 molecule and the emitted IR certainly doesn't go about bouncing off of CO2 molecules.

I dont know what the average travel time is for one of those pinballing photons but it is certainly more than if it were travelling straight out at the speed of light.

There are no "pinballing" photons because the emission of one CO2 molecule can not be absorbed by another.

I can understand argueing that the increased CO2 doesnt make much difference, ~1C for this doubling, less for subsequent ones.

It makes no difference. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy are not open to compromize. They either are, or they are not. Energy either passes from cool to warm or it does not. The 2nd law says that it does not.

I can understand argueing that natural factors are the main drivers of climate and overwhelm the puny contributions of man. I can even understand argueing that a significant portion of the last hundred years' warming is due to artificial 'adjustments'.

All true and valid arguments, but they don't get to the heart of the issue; that being that CO2 does not, can not, has not, and never will drive the climate of the earth by even a tiny fraction of a degree.

but I cant understand how you can dismiss CO2 out of hand as having no role in warming. 0.5%, 5%, 50%. I dont know which one is closest to being right but it has to be one of them.

Describe the law of physics that says it "has" to be one of them. Show me the math. Explain to me which law of physics states that if you wrap a -20 degree C atmosphere around a -18 degree earth the temperature will increase by 33 degrees to 15 degrees C.

your bullshit claims of 2nd law violation are getting old. you are just as in love with your pet theory as any of the warmers are with theirs. well, maybe not Chris and his temperature record highs or Old Rocks and his strange weather, but close.

To date, I have seen no law of physics presented that supports the idea that either the 2nd law of thermodynamics or the law of conservation of energy allow "pinballing" photons, or heat to travel on an EM wave against the stream, so to speak, of the direction of a stronger EM wave propagated in a different direction. I have seen no law of physics in any form cited that supports and predicts any of the phenomena that you are claiming.

 

[RWatt]

None of your numbered choices has anything to do with what I have said.

Why don't you just answer it?

Here it is again, I'll keep posting until you decide to answer the question.

Two stars A and B. Star B is warmer than star A. Both stars emit light in all directions.

You claim light from the cooler star A doesn't reach star B. But given that star A is radiating light in all directions, explain how your claim works. Here are the options:

1) Star A never emits light towards star B in the first place.

2) Star A does emit light towards star B, but the light changes direction immediately after emission

3) Star A does emit light towards star B, but it changes direction before it reaches star B (say when)

4) Light from star A reaches star B, but bends round it

5) Light from star A reaches star B, but passes straight through it

This cuts the heart of your mistake. THe reason you won't answer is because you can't think of an answer. You realize all those 5 options are absurd.

The problem is you are dogmatically sticking to your misinterpretation of the 2nd law and then trying to fit reality to that. That's why you are avoiding answering the star question.

 

[wirebender]

None of your numbered choices has anything to do with what I have said.

Why don't you just answer it?

Here it is again, I'll keep posting until you decide to answer the question.

Two stars A and B. Star B is warmer than star A. Both stars emit light in all directions.

You claim light from the cooler star A doesn't reach star B. But given that star A is radiating light in all directions, explain how your claim works. Here are the options:

1) Star A never emits light towards star B in the first place.

2) Star A does emit light towards star B, but the light changes direction immediately after emission

3) Star A does emit light towards star B, but it changes direction before it reaches star B (say when)

4) Light from star A reaches star B, but bends round it

5) Light from star A reaches star B, but passes straight through it

This cuts the heart of your mistake. THe reason you won't answer is because you can't think of an answer. You realize all those 5 options are absurd.

The problem is you are dogmatically sticking to your misinterpretation of the 2nd law and then trying to fit reality to that. That's why you are avoiding answering the star question.

It is clear that you simply don't understand electromagnetic forces. The first thing is that you don't seem to understand that photons don't generate themselves. Electromagnetic fields carry photons and when more than one electromagnetic field is involved, those fields (and the photons they carry) move in the direction propagated by the stronger field.

Of all your answers, 1 is the closest to reality (except that this isn't a matter of light, or photons, but EM fields and the direction in which they are propagated) assuming that star A is the warmer of the two but I am sure that you don't grasp why it is true but I will try again to show you and then I would like to see you do the math to prove that 1 is not true.

In the case of your two stars, the brighter star is propagating the stronger field so all photons within that field move in the direction dictated by the brighter star. Photons can't swin upstream (so to speak) agains the stronger EM field generated by the brighter star. EM fields carry photon energy. Photons have no mass so why is it so difficult for you to grasp that the photons would be carried in the direction of the EM wave propagated by the brighter (warmer) star, that is to say in the direction of the larger force?

Lets go through the math again and examine your suggestion that photons can move from cool to warm. This isn't that tough and after we are done, you do the math and prove that energy can move from cool to warm.

To keep this simple, lets say that the ability of each star to emit energy (e) will equal 1, and the Tc (thermal time constant) will be zero. That is to say that the energy moves from one star to the other instantaneously. It makes no difference what the Tc is as the effect on the EM field or wave is the same. I am just using zero to keep it simple. So we have e=1 and Tc=0. The Stefan-Boltzman constant (BC), as always 5.67 X 10^-8.

So far we have:

e=1
Tc = 0
BC = 5.67 X 10^-8

Lets let the warmer star have a temperature (T) of 100 degrees. If you want to make your stars a million degrees when you take your turn at the math feel free but the results won't change. The warmer star will radiate 5.67 Wm2 and will propagate an EM field of BC *(100^4)= 5.67 Wm2.

Lets let your cooler star be half the temperature of the warmer star. 50 degrees. This star will propagate an EM field of BC *(50^4)= 0.35 Wm2.

Subtract the two EM fields 5.67 – 0.35 = 5.32 Wm2 and the field will be moving in the direction of the cooler star. None of the energy from the cooler star will reach the warmer star and the temperature of the warmer star will remainat 100 degrees. This is precisely what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics predicts.

Now lets look at what is happening with the cooler star. It is receiving 5.32 Wm2 from the field that resulted when you subtracted the two EM fields. The cooler star will absorb energy from the warmer star and as a result, its temperature will increase. Once it absorbs the 5.32Wm2 from the warmer star it will radiate the 5.32 Wm2 plus the 0.35 Wm2 that it was already radiating. Your cooler star is now radiating 5.67 Wm2.

Since it is now radiationg 5.67 Wm2, we can assume that its temperature is 100 degrees. The two stars are now in equilibrium. They each are 100 degrees and radiating 5.67 Wm2. At this point, if you subtract the two EM fields, you get 5.67 – 5.67 = 0 Wm2. There is now no energy transfer between them and they will remain at 100 degrees and continue to radiate 5.67 Wm2. If there is no EM field moving from one towards the other then no photons can move from one to the other either because they can only move if an EM field is moving them.

If you suddenly "turn off" your stars they will both cool down at the same rate and if you "turn up" the thermostat on one of them a stronger EM field will be propagated by the now warmer star which will result in the cooler star absorbing energy till equilibrium is once again achieved.

Now its your turn. Show me the math that results in the cooler star warming up the warmer star by even the smallest increment.

 

[RWatt]

None of your numbered choices has anything to do with what I have said.

Why don't you just answer it?

Here it is again, I'll keep posting until you decide to answer the question.

Two stars A and B. Star B is warmer than star A. Both stars emit light in all directions.

You claim light from the cooler star A doesn't reach star B. But given that star A is radiating light in all directions, explain how your claim works. Here are the options:

1) Star A never emits light towards star B in the first place.

2) Star A does emit light towards star B, but the light changes direction immediately after emission

3) Star A does emit light towards star B, but it changes direction before it reaches star B (say when)

4) Light from star A reaches star B, but bends round it

5) Light from star A reaches star B, but passes straight through it

This cuts the heart of your mistake. THe reason you won't answer is because you can't think of an answer. You realize all those 5 options are absurd.

The problem is you are dogmatically sticking to your misinterpretation of the 2nd law and then trying to fit reality to that. That's why you are avoiding answering the star question.

Of all your answers, 1 is the closest to reality (except that this isn't a matter of light, or photons, but EM fields and the direction in which they are propagated) assuming that star A is the warmer of the two but I am sure that you don't grasp why it is true but I will try again to show you and then I would like to see you do the math to prove that 1 is not true.

It doesn't require math to prove that 1 is not true. Simple example is more effective.

If there is no radiation emitted from star A towards star B then there is no light from star A towards star B.

So we have a spacecraft moving through space. Everyone inside can see both stars because both stars have long ago emitted light towards the space the ship occupies.

Then the spacecraft crosses the path between the two stars. I say that the people on the spacecraft can still see both stars, because those stars have both emitted light towards each other.

But if what you are saying was true and there was no light emitted from star A towards star B, then as soon as the spacecraft moved between the two stars, star B would become invisible to everyone on the ship.

That's obviously not how the universe works!

In the case of your two stars, the brighter star is propagating the stronger field so all photons within that field move in the direction dictated by the brighter star. Photons can't swin upstream (so to speak) agains the stronger EM field generated by the brighter star.

Once photons have left their source they carry on. Photons emitted later are independent of photons emitted earlier. There is no all encompassing field governing them.

Otherwise what happens if this field changes direction (ie the colder star becomes the warmer one) - does all the light suddenly switch round 180 degrees and start flying the otherway? Again that isn't how the universe works, light can't reverse itself like that.

Now its your turn. Show me the math that results in the cooler star warming up the warmer star by even the smallest increment.

If the warmer star absorbs 0.35wm-2 from the cooler star, because the light from the cooler star reaches it and is absorbed by it, then that's 0.35wm-2 extra energy absorbed by the warm star. Your own math shows that extra energy absorbed will leave it warmer.

The issue of disagreement is not about what happens when light is absorbed by a body, but you disagreeing that light from a colder body will even reach a warmer body in the first place.

How can it not?

There are so many problems with what you are advocating.

There is no "field" spanning light years between stars in space that dictates the direction of travel of photons within that field. The direction bodies emit light in is not influenced at all by the temperature of objects in their path. That would be impossible. It would require faster than light communication for a start as photons would have to somehow "know" how hot a star 500 million light years away was warmer than it.

 

[wirebender]

It doesn't require math to prove that 1 is not true. Simple example is more effective.

Yeah, that's what all climate scientists say. Unfortunately, it does require math to prove. Show me that the laws of physics and the math prove that you are right or admit that you can't. Either way, you have effectively lost the argument because I know that the math and science doesn't support your claim and your opinion which is what you are voicing if you don't have the math and science to back you up, doesn't stand against the math and science.

So we have a spacecraft moving through space. Everyone inside can see both stars because both stars have long ago emitted light towards the space the ship occupies.

Have yu ever been on a space ship travelling between stars? Have you ever stood on a star and looked out towards another star? If you could stand on a star and look into space, you would see no other stars because no photons would be swimming upstream along your star's stronger EM field.

If that is not true, then show me the math and the laws of science that back you up. A flawed thought experiment is no substitute for hard mathematical proof which is what I have provided for you. If you can't do the math, then simply state as much but shucking and jiving and providing thought experiments in the face of a mathematical equaion is just silly.

Once photons have left their source they carry on. Photons emitted later are independent of photons emitted earlier. There is no all encompassing field governing them.

Photons only travel on an EM wave. They are not free agents. If a stronger EM wave is washing over wherever you are standing, you will only see light (photons) from the source of the stronger EM field. Do you believe you can't see the stars during the daytime simply because the sun is shining? You can't see the stars because the EM field propagated by the surface you are standing on is greater in magnitude than any of the EM fields coming in except one. If you were standing on the sun looking towards earth, you would not be able to see earth as no photons from earth could travel the wrong way against the EM field of the sun.

Otherwise what happens if this field changes direction (ie the colder star becomes the warmer one) - does all the light suddenly switch round 180 degrees and start flying the otherway? Again that isn't how the universe works, light can't reverse itself like that.

As I have shown you, using the laws of physics, when one star becomes brighter than the other, the EM wave propagated by the brigher star dictates the direction photons are travelling. If you believe otherwise, show me the math and back it up with laws of science. A thought experiment isn't a substitute for either. If it were, why would one have to take so much math in order to be a scientist? (except for climate scientists who need take almost no math).

If the warmer star absorbs 0.35wm-2 from the cooler star, because the light from the cooler star reaches it and is absorbed by it, then that's 0.35wm-2 extra energy absorbed by the warm star. Your own math shows that extra energy absorbed will leave it warmer.

As I have already shown you when you stubtract the two EM fields, the balance has the warmer star propagating the EM field that reaches the cooler star. The cooler star doesn't radiate anything towards the warmer star as the weaker EM field can not overcome a stronger EM field. Since photons travel on EM fields, they can only travel in the direction of the stronger EM field. And my own math showed no such thing. If you believe that, then you have admitted that the math is beyond you.

The issue of disagreement is not about what happens when light is absorbed by a body, but you disagreeing that light from a colder body will even reach a warmer body in the first place.

That is preciisely the disagreement. That is at the heart of the hypotheses of AGW and the greenhouse effect. The math and laws of science prove quite elegantly that neither is happening. As the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states no energy transferrs spontaneously from one object to a warmer object. That is because energy from an object can't move against the stream of a stronger EM field of another object. If you were somehow standing on the surface of your warm star and your cooler star were the only other object in the universe, you would not be able to see the cooler star because none of its photons could travel from it, against the "current" of the stronger EM field propagated by your warmer star.

Try to imagine a high pressure fire hose and a garden hose aimed so precisely at each other than the allignment were perfect and the nature of the hoses was such that a solid stream of water were flowing out and you were in zero gravity so that there would be no arc in the respective streams. If you turn on the hoses the stream from the firehose will be such that the volume of water is so great that when it strikes the garden hose, either no water at all will come out of the garden hose or the dribble that makes it to the nozzle will blow backwards. Of course, garden hoses don't have the ability to spray in every direction but if you like you can try to imagine that your stars are radiating water if that helps you picture what is happening. The water from the high pressure star will overwhelm the water from the low pressure star and the low pressure star will spray in every direction except in the exact direction the water from the high pressure star is coming.

How can it not?

I have shown you how it can not. The fact that you can not grasp the math or the laws of physics is not my problem. Right now, your problem is that the best you can manage is a thought experiment against actual math and the laws of physics.

There are so many problems with what you are advocating.

So show me the math errors. Show me the error in the Stefan-Boltzman law. Show me what physicists have been missing for hundreds of years.

There is no "field" spanning light years between stars in space that dictates the direction of travel of photons within that field.

Yes there is. If there were no EM fields, there would be no light because photons require an EM field in order to travel. And if you are standing on an EM field emitter which is producing a more powerful field than any of those coming in, you will not be able to see the emitters of the other fields in any direction in which your EM field is the most powerful as no photons from the weaker emitters will reach you.

I am truely sorry that you aren't able to grasp this to the point that you can get an image in your head. You apparently believe that photons are free agents and are able to travel independent of an EM field. Sorry, but they can't. That is why if an object is at zero degrees K, it can not be seen because at zero degrees K it does not emit any EM field and therefore no photon can leave from it.

The direction bodies emit light in is not influenced at all by the temperature of objects in their path.

Yes it is and I have shown you the math. Photons can only move along an EM field, and they can not move against a more powerful EM field.

That would be impossible.

I have shown you the math and backed it up with the laws of physics and you still claim impossible. The only thing that is impossible right now is for you to grasp what is actually happening. Clearly you don't understand the mechanism and it is so far away from the model you have in your head that it is incomprehensible to you.

Arthur C. Clark stated it very elegantly when he said:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

I have described what is happening and supported my claim with both math and the laws of physics and you are claiming magic. There is no doubt that the math backs me up, and that the laws of physics state that the math is correct and yet, you are accusing me of describing sorcery. At this point, the reality is beyond your ability to grasp so you claim magic, or impossibility.

If you believe it is impossible, then show me the math and the laws of science that support your math.

It would require faster than light communication for a start as photons would have to somehow "know" how hot a star 500 million light years away was warmer than it.

More evidence that the topic is, at present, beyond you. You still have this image in your head that photons are free agents. They are not. They have zero mass and their movement is at the whim of EM fields.

Say that you have a ball sitting on a table and on one side of the ball you have a stick of spaghetti touching the ball and on the other side you have a pool que. You apply force to the pool que and at the exact same time, you apply a weaker force to the stick of spaghetti. The ball on the table doesn't need to "know" which force is stronger or which direction it should be moving; it simply goes in the direction of the greater force. The same is true for photons.

If you are standing on an emitting surface facing a body 500 million light years away and the surface you are standing on is emitting a greater EM field in the direction of the body you are facing you will not see the body because no photons from that body are coming towards you. Now if you can move and stand on a surface or empty space where you are not in an EM field that is moving towards the body 500 million light years away, you will see the object if enough photons from it reach you to allow you a visual.

It isn't magic RWatt. Picture it like the blind spot you have in the middle of your field of vision. You have probably lived your whole life completely unaware of it but it is there none the less.

I really feel like I am doing you a disservice RWatt. I am overlooking some key example that would allow you to form a model in your head that would allow you to visualize what is happening but I am trying to keep it simple. I wan't to bring in vectors but you aren't getting it now, further complicating the model can't help. Here, let me give you a definition of vector, and tell you that EM fields are vectors.

vector -a quantity possessing both magnitude and direction, represented by an arrow the direction of which indicates the direction of the quantity and the length of which is proportional to the magnitude.

Does it help if you imagine your warm star and your cold star with arrows extending from them in every direction and in the places where the arrows from your warm star meet the arrows from your cool star head on, the arrows from your warm star overcome the arrows from your cool star and extend all the way to the surface of your cooler star? That being the case, no arrow extends from your cool star in those particular directions so no energy from your cool star can leave it in the direction of the arrows coming in from the warmer star.

That is as simple as I can make it guy and the math and the laws of physics support the statement. If you can't grasp it, I apologize for not having the language necessary to help you form a visual.

 

[sparky]

so we have more CO2 due to an EM field allowing photons in, and not out?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

so we have more CO2 due to an EM field allowing photons in, and not out?

Can you show us even one time in a lab how 200PPM addition CO2 will raise temperature 5-7 degrees like the Insane Clown Posse Warmers at MIT claim it does?

 

[IanC]

More evidence that the topic is, at present, beyond you. You still have this image in your head that photons are free agents. They are not. They have zero mass and their movement is at the whim of EM fields.

Say that you have a ball sitting on a table and on one side of the ball you have a stick of spaghetti touching the ball and on the other side you have a pool que. You apply force to the pool que and at the exact same time, you apply a weaker force to the stick of spaghetti. The ball on the table doesn't need to "know" which force is stronger or which direction it should be moving; it simply goes in the direction of the greater force. The same is true for photons.

hahahahaha, wirebender has gone totally wacko! hahahahaha

my flashlight is stronger than yours, and the photons are afraid to come out of your filament!

 

[sparky]

so we have more CO2 due to an EM field allowing photons in, and not out?

Can you show us even one time in a lab how 200PPM addition CO2 will raise temperature 5-7 degrees like the Insane Clown Posse Warmers at MIT claim it does?

Right after you explain which natural cycle or phenomenon has resulted in an increase of CO2 Frank.....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

so we have more CO2 due to an EM field allowing photons in, and not out?

Can you show us even one time in a lab how 200PPM addition CO2 will raise temperature 5-7 degrees like the Insane Clown Posse Warmers at MIT claim it does?

Right after you explain which natural cycle or phenomenon has resulted in an increase of CO2 Frank.....

Again, Warmers are claiming they need to destroy the American economy to save the planet so the Warmers have the burden of proof.

Try this, the planet has been getting warmer relatively recently.

Before Recent Global Warming

The Vostok Ice cores show that CO2 increases lag warming so the recent increase is due to the recent natural warming.

Now can you show me how a 100PPM increase in CO2 melt glaciers?